Feat rogue + fighter

[Dandu]

There wouldn't be exp penalty because they'd all be within 1 of eachother.

And if you keep them all within 1 level of each other through your entire career, how well does that work?

We're always arguing what's broken or not as compared to a wizard, well I don't mind that wizards are insanely strong. I can kill a wizard at any time I like.

Then you shouldn't mind the Rogue/Fighter, since you can kill it any time you like.

It's when those tanks start holding their own that I get worried.

Why? Because melee finally can do the role it was intended to fulfill? Furthermore, what's stopping you from adjusting an encounter to challenge a tank that can hold his own? You noted that there were a lot of ways to use monsters to counter a wizard's abilities; you can do exactly the same thing against a strong fighter. Offhand, throw a spellcaster at him and see how he likes a Deep Slumber. His will save as a multiclass Rogue/Fighter/Psionic Warrior will be +0.

Granted, I could run every encounter as if the fighters aren't their and just wail upon the wizards, but I don't. When players build their characters to withstand damage, I don't punish them for it by never letting monsters try to strike them. I build my encounters around my players.

That's great. What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

And how can you somehow not build encounters around someone with three more feats than normal due to multiclassing?

It's only when any given player could clearly survive on her own with a cleric cohort that I believe it's unbalanced.

Then having a Feat Rogue/Fighter multiclass shouldn't bother you because it can't clearly survive on its own with a cleric cohort more than most other classes.

Having 3 more feats than a straight 3.5e fighter is not unbalanced; a Pathfinder fighter gets about the same advantage and it's still not overpowered.

Incidentally, I think I can make a commoner who can survive on his own with a cleric cohort.

 

[rgard]

I know you cannot take levels in Feat rogue and then take normal rogue level but is it legal to take a couple levels in feat rogue and then take fighter levels?

The feat rogue is a class variant and you are welcome to multi-class to fighter.

You can sometimes even multi-class between variants of the same class.

Here is the relevant passage from the SRD:

Multiclassing And Variant Classes
Multiclassing between variants of the same class is a tricky subject. In cases where a single class offers a variety of paths (such as the totem barbarian or the monk fighting styles), the easiest solution is simply to bar multiclassing between different versions of the same class (just as a character can't multiclass between different versions of specialist wizards). For variants that are wholly separate from the character class—such as the bardic sage or the urban ranger—multiclassing, even into multiple variants of the same class, is probably okay. Identical class features should stack if gained from multiple versions of the same class (except for spellcasting, which is always separate).

In any case, only the first version of a favored class is treated as favored; a halfling rogue/wizard who later begins gaining levels in the wilderness rogue variant class can't treat both the rogue and wilderness rogue classes as favored, only the class gained first (in this case, rogue). Under no circumstances does spellcasting ability from multiple classes (even variants of the same class) stack. A character with levels of bard and levels of bardic sage has two separate caster levels and two separate sets of spells per day, even though the classes are very similar.

Variant Character Classes :: d20srd.org

 

[radmod]

And if you keep them all within 1 level of each other through your entire career, how well does that work?

Remember, one doesn't have to be, for a human. Thus you could have 7/3/4 without a problem. I have a PC who will be, within a few levels: 1/8/2/2/1.

Because melee finally can do the role it was intended to fulfill?

We're always arguing what's broken or not as compared to a wizard, well I don't mind that wizards are insanely strong.

Why do I seem to be the only one who thinks Wizards aren't really that hard to kill/counter? Yeah, they're big guns but they're also glass houses (often).

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

Hmm, it sure sounded like his comment had something to do with what you're talking about, but, hey, that's me.

I, too, worry when tanks can handle their own really, really well. Simply because if a tank can handle it's own, it usually means the rest of the party suffers. It seems somehow wrong to me to add one or two monsters that go after the tank, while the 'lesser' monsters go after the non-tanks. Encounters should be logical.

LOL, this reminds me of 2e when people complained that Fighters were way too powerful.

 

[Dandu]

Remember, one doesn't have to be, for a human. Thus you could have 7/3/4 without a problem. I have a PC who will be, within a few levels: 1/8/2/2/1.

I see.

Why do I seem to be the only one who thinks Wizards aren't really that hard to kill/counter? Yeah, they're big guns but they're also glass houses (often).

Casters can be much harder to kill than fighters, not because they can take more damage, but because they have more ways of avoiding damage after roughly level 5-6, but that's really not relevant to this thread.

Hmm, it sure sounded like his comment had something to do with what you're talking about, but, hey, that's me.

Then maybe you can explain what he is talking about.

I, too, worry when tanks can handle their own really, really well. Simply because if a tank can handle it's own, it usually means the rest of the party suffers. It seems somehow wrong to me to add one or two monsters that go after the tank, while the 'lesser' monsters go after the non-tanks. Encounters should be logical.

Well if the tank is a larger threat than anyone else, it would only be logical for the stronger monsters to go after him.

 

[radmod]

Well if the tank is a larger threat than anyone else, it would only be logical for the stronger monsters to go after him.

Ah, but they have to know he is. It's really hard for monsters, without the Know Your Enemy innate ability to determine which tank is greater than the other tank. Usually, that takes a round or two.

 

[Dandu]

Ah, but they have to know he is. It's really hard for monsters, without the Know Your Enemy innate ability to determine which tank is greater than the other tank. Usually, that takes a round or two.

So now there's two tanks in the party.

Hey, I have an interesting question.

Is a Monk2/Fighter2/Psywar2 too much? It gets the same amount of feats as a Feat Rogue2/Fighter2/Psywar2, and more than a Fighter 6, after all.

 

[radmod]

So now there's two tanks in the party.

Fine, yeesh. How about: it's hard for the monsters to know exactly who is the tank in the party. In the party I'm in, I'm the tank though I appear unarmored.
Besides I was using 'tank' to simply mean armored/high AC. Usually there's two in the standard party. I'm sure everyone but you got that.

 

[Dandu]

Besides I was using 'tank' to simply mean armored/high AC. Usually there's two in the standard party. I'm sure everyone but you got that.

I did not get the memo on what a standard party consisted of. Please, do tell me how you came to the conclusion that the average party has two tanks. I would greatly appreciate a look at your research data.

 

[radmod]

I did not get the memo on what a standard party consisted of. Please, do tell me how you came to the conclusion that the average party has two tanks. I would greatly appreciate a look at your research data.

Oh, please, don't play dumb in order to be your usual wise-ass self. You know as well as I do that the standard party is FTR + CLC + MAGE + THF, and the FTR + CLC is usually armored (e.g. tanked). You also know that when party sizes get larger they usually add FTRs first.
Fine, you want research data*, then how about in the thirty plus years I've been playing, which involves literally hundreds of different combos of parties and players, I've only seen two instances where there were not two armored PCs. Those were special cases: 1) A group of nature fighters which involved lightly armored Rangers and Druids and 2) A urban campaign of scoundrels.
If you've been around that long, you may recall how players were always trying to multi-class their mages so they could wear armor.

*I could sit down and provide it, even give statistical analysis, but why bother when you know the truth.

 

[Dandu]

Oh, please, don't play dumb in order to be your usual wise-ass self. You know as well as I do that the standard party is FTR + CLC + MAGE + THF, and the FTR + CLC is usually armored (e.g. tanked). You also know that when party sizes get larger they usually add FTRs first.

How do I know that when it does not match up with my gaming experience?

Fine, you want research data*, then how about in the thirty plus years I've been playing, which involves literally hundreds of different combos of parties and players, I've only seen two instances where there were not two armored PCs. Those were special cases: 1) A group of nature fighters which involved lightly armored Rangers and Druids and 2) A urban campaign of scoundrels.
If you've been around that long, you may recall how players were always trying to multi-class their mages so they could wear armor.

And since we're talking about 3.5 classes, your long experience with other versions of DnD means squat; only the part about 3.5 counts in a 3.5 discussion.

*I could sit down and provide it, even give statistical analysis, but why bother when you know the truth.

I would like to point out that armored character =/= tank.